Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

36 Me. 388

Chamberlain v. Lake

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1853

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1853-07-01

On Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Hathaway, J., presiding. This action was entered at the Oct. term, 1852. At that term, the defendant’s attorney appeared specially. At this (January) term, he moved, that the suit be dismissed for the reason, that the writ was dated on the sixth day of October, 1852, and made returnable “ on the fourth Tuesday of October next.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1938

1 district ·

Relies on Mitchell v. Starbuck

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Shepley. C. J. —

¶1By an inspection of the writ it would appear, that it was made returnable at the proper term, and that the Court had jurisdiction of the case. It was only by evidence, dehors the record, that the writ could be abated. When a defect is apparent of record, advantage may be taken of it by motion, and a decision upon that motion will present a question of law arising upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of the record.

¶2When the defect is not thus apparent, advantage of any alleged defect can only be taken by plea in abatement; for the plaintiff has a right to traverse the allegations and to have an issue forrqed to be tried by a jury. Com. Dig. Abatement, K and H, 1; Mitchell v. Starbuck, 10 Mass. 5; Purple v. Clark, 5 Pick. 206; Upham v. Bradley, 17 Maine, 423.

¶3In the case of Purple v. Clark, it was decided that it was only when a decision was made upon a motion to dismiss for, a defect of process apparent of record, that a question of law would be presented by it.

¶4In this case, a question, not of law but of fact, was pre*390sented by the motion, and to’ a decision of it exceptions will not lie. Exceptions dismissed.

Tenney, Rice and Appleton, J. J., concurred.
/36/me/388 · .json · Public domain